[nec]Christianity vs Atheism - Armor Games Community

3094	566911

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted August 6, '10 6:35pm UTC

P.P.S. From what I could get out of some quick research (I'll look at it more later) it looks like this Tyre was actually a new city, rather than a rebuilding of the old one, founded on the build up caused by Alexander's make-shift bridge. Because of the close proximity to the original city site, the name was used again. Not sure though, Ill get back to you on that.
Oh one last thing, are you even NOT on this forum? =P

That I would consider being rebuilt. And it still isn't under water, as was predicted. And what do you mean "are you even NOT on this forum?

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted August 6, '10 8:48pm UTC

Evolution used to be a theory, but was rapidly accepted as definite truth somewhere along the way. I have no problem with this, so long as the theory has plenty of verification.

Wrong. Evolution was a hypothesis which was tested and observed. After mountains of data proved it to be true it became a fact. That fact, coupled with other facts, such as natural selection, make up the entirety of the Theory of Evolution.

A scientific 'theory' is NOT a guess. It is a collection of observable, demonstrable, verifiable FACTS which, when taken together, explain all aspects of a specific area of science. If you are going to try to flame science at least know what you are flaming.

And now, years later, with the field of geology more advanced than ever, other than several hoaxes and a few cases of mistaken identity, no "links" have been found.

Actually that is not true at all. Yes, there have been hoaxes from time to time, but we have just about every link you could possibly ever want to prove beyond a doubt that evolution can, does, and did happen. Please, educate yourself on all areas of a scientific concept before you dismiss it simply because you got some small bit of info from a contradicting and incorrect viewpoint.

Oh, and to use your example of fish -> amphibian 'links'. Amphibians ARE links. They are the links from solely water dwelling creatures to solely land dwelling creatures. They are a 'hybrid' of both, to use your term. So what 'links' are we missing?

As for the remainder of your argument, it's been made over and over again the fact is that there is NO supporting evidence. None. If something like what you put forth actually happened we would have archaeological evidence of it. Granted, lack of proof is not in itself proof of something not taking place, but putting forth something as true without evidence is folly. Claims without evidence can, and are, dismissed without evidence. That's how the scientific method works. Either you can prove your claim or you don't waste our time.

Also, regarding the Cumberland Bone Caves, I cannot find ANY scientific site that states that any of the fossils found are out of place. Simply because a species is found there and in other areas of the world simply implies migration, not supernatural interference. If you are implying different climates, then you must remember that climates now are not what they were hundreds of thousands of years ago. Not sure what you are trying to get at with the reference to the caves in Maryland.

I just want people to realize that not ALL the pieces are there for Evolution.

You're right, there are a few pieces missing. However there are enough pieces there for us to be able to state honestly, and supported by evidence, that evolution is a FACT. It is true, it does happen, both on large and small scales, and it fully explains how different life forms are related. There is no doubt to anyone with an understanding of evolution that it is a fact. To deny it means you either don't understand it, or you simply don't want to look at all of the evidence.

[quote]Evolution used to be a theory, but was rapidly accepted as definite truth somewhere along the way. I have no problem with this, so long as the theory has plenty of verification.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWrong. Evolution was a hypothesis which was tested and observed. After mountains of data proved it to be true it became a fact. That fact, coupled with other facts, such as natural selection, make up the entirety of the Theory of Evolution. \r\n\r\nA scientific 'theory' is NOT a guess. It is a collection of observable, demonstrable, verifiable FACTS which, when taken together, explain all aspects of a specific area of science. If you are going to try to flame science at least know what you are flaming.\r\n[quote]\r\nAnd now, years later, with the field of geology more advanced than ever, other than several hoaxes and a few cases of mistaken identity, no "links" have been found.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually that is not true at all. Yes, there have been hoaxes from time to time, but we have just about every link you could possibly ever want to prove beyond a doubt that evolution can, does, and did happen. Please, educate yourself on all areas of a scientific concept before you dismiss it simply because you got some small bit of info from a contradicting and incorrect viewpoint. \r\n\r\nOh, and to use your example of fish -> amphibian 'links'. Amphibians ARE links. They are the links from solely water dwelling creatures to solely land dwelling creatures. They are a 'hybrid' of both, to use your term. So what 'links' are we missing?\r\n\r\nAs for the remainder of your argument, it's been made over and over again the fact is that there is NO supporting evidence. None. If something like what you put forth actually happened we would have archaeological evidence of it. Granted, lack of proof is not in itself proof of something not taking place, but putting forth something as true without evidence is folly. Claims without evidence can, and are, dismissed without evidence. That's how the scientific method works. Either you can prove your claim or you don't waste our time. \r\n\r\nAlso, regarding the Cumberland Bone Caves, I cannot find ANY scientific site that states that any of the fossils found are out of place. Simply because a species is found there and in other areas of the world simply implies migration, not supernatural interference. If you are implying different climates, then you must remember that climates now are not what they were hundreds of thousands of years ago. Not sure what you are trying to get at with the reference to the caves in Maryland. \r\n\r\n[quote]I just want people to realize that not ALL the pieces are there for Evolution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou're right, there are a few pieces missing. However there are enough pieces there for us to be able to state honestly, and supported by evidence, that evolution is a FACT. It is true, it does happen, both on large and small scales, and it fully explains how different life forms are related. There is no doubt to anyone with an understanding of evolution that it is a fact. To deny it means you either don't understand it, or you simply don't want to look at all of the evidence.

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted August 6, '10 10:27pm UTC

Oh, and to use your example of fish -> amphibian 'links'. Amphibians ARE links. They are the links from solely water dwelling creatures to solely land dwelling creatures. They are a 'hybrid' of both, to use your term. So what 'links' are we missing?

To support that, I advise you to look for articles about tetrapodomorphs and tetrapodes. The book I'm reading has a long introduction about the difference and relation between the two, it's fascinating. For example, it shows that the common misconception that our limbs evolved in the goal to allow us to walk is totally wrong; chiridian limbs (limbs with digits) weren't a novel attribute of the first amphibian-like tetrapodes, but were in fact developed before there were land-walking tetrapodes. They allowed the tetrapodomorphs to lurk in the sediments and propulse them through the water to catch a prey, but were actually too weak to support their weight on earth. The whole 'going from water to earth' thing is anyway often misunderstood. It is a frequent event in evolution who happened many times (without connections) and, of course, it isn't a conscious process.
By the way, 314d1, I hope you know that lung fishes aren't links, they are a self-cotained clade.

Concerning what I thought I had read about missing links, I think I messed things up. Actually I read about the term 'living fossils', and how this term is completely wrong.

Sry if I went slightly off-topic...

[quote]Oh, and to use your example of fish -> amphibian 'links'. Amphibians ARE links. They are the links from solely water dwelling creatures to solely land dwelling creatures. They are a 'hybrid' of both, to use your term. So what 'links' are we missing?[/quote]\r\nTo support that, I advise you to look for articles about tetrapodomorphs and tetrapodes. The book I'm reading has a long introduction about the difference and relation between the two, it's fascinating. For example, it shows that the common misconception that our limbs evolved in the goal to allow us to walk is totally wrong; chiridian limbs (limbs with digits) weren't a novel attribute of the first amphibian-like tetrapodes, but were in fact developed before there were land-walking tetrapodes. They allowed the tetrapodomorphs to lurk in the sediments and propulse them through the water to catch a prey, but were actually too weak to support their weight on earth. The whole 'going from water to earth' thing is anyway often misunderstood. It is a frequent event in evolution who happened many times (without connections) and, of course, it isn't a conscious process.  \r\nBy the way, 314d1, I hope you know that lung fishes aren't links, they are a self-cotained clade. \r\n\r\nConcerning what I thought I had read about missing links, I think I messed things up. Actually I read about the term 'living fossils', and how this term is completely wrong. \r\n\r\nSry if I went slightly off-topic...

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted August 6, '10 10:32pm UTC

By the way, 314d1, I hope you know that lung fishes aren't links, they are a self-cotained clade.

I realize this, I was using it as an example for evolution. In a few million years, it may be able to walk on land. It could easily become an amphibian, so I used it as an example.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted August 7, '10 2:23am UTC

To support that, I advise you to look for articles about tetrapodomorphs and tetrapodes. The book I'm reading has a long introduction about the difference and relation between the two, it's fascinating.

Yeah I try to avoid making my arguments overly technical though. Seems to me like the people who argue against science don't understand science so I try to explain it in a fashion that won't scare them off.

Although I am very pleased that at least some of the kids out there are learning about our world and are enjoying it as well.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted August 7, '10 2:43am UTC

Uniformitarianism beliefs state that the earth's geological and fossil records were the results of slow natural processes over vast amounts of time.

Actually it states the natural laws and processes accruing in the universe now were the same in the past. That of course doesn't mean the conditions with in those laws and processes couldn't change.

They say that strata is created by the slow swell and receding of the oceans over time (1,000,000s of years or more). Now, several tree trunks have been found preserved, running vertically across several layers of strata. There is no way a tree could stand the test of 1,000,000's (or more) years of weather,

Yes that's one method other can include volcanic activity.
Also your argument that trees can't last for a million years is out the window As we have trees at Fishlake National Forest that estimate between 80,000-1,000,000 years old.

For further information on polystrate trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

2. The standpoint of evolution is based off of Darwin's writings, and ideas (as hopefully, just about everyone knows).

Actually the hypothesis existed before Darwin, he simply provided the best evidence pushing it to become the leading theory. There has been 150 years since then of confirming his findings and discovering additional evidence.

And Darwin realized and admitted that if no "missing links" were found, his theory was improbable at best. And now, years later, with the field of geology more advanced than ever, other than several hoaxes and a few cases of mistaken identity, no "links" have been found. It would seem that we would not only find fossilized fish and amphibians, but fossilized hybrids,

It's already been pointed out to you how wrong you are here so I will just say... We have the fossils, WE WIN!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/transisitional1.jpg

But I can say this. Christians and Jews have been talking about a "Great Flood" for thousands of years. And now, the geological records point to a huge catastrophe (Cumberland Bonecaves, anyone?) that rapidly shaped much of our geological records.

People have been talking about how the sun is carried through the sky by a god for thousands of years, whats your point?

Okay they found evidence for a catastrophic flood in a localized area. What you haven't found is evidence for a global catastrophic flood. Such an event would have left a very clear layer of stratum. (note singular, meaning just one, not plural)

Also the places that have flood stories are all in areas that are or were near or around bodies of water. Further indicating these are stories of LOCALIZED floods.

In a way, yes. At some point, if a species slowly goes from not having a leg to having one, their would be something between... Unless one generation had no legs while the second suddenly did, and that doesn't sound like evolution to me.

The transitional phases would have served other functions, such as a fin.

This is a great piece of evidence for micro evolution. But has little weight in an argument about macro evolution. I hope you know there's a difference.

Just wonder but do you realize the difference between the two?

Micro evolution is the process of evolution below the level of species, macro evolution is the process at or above the level of species. It's the same process just look at from different scales.

Saying micro evolution can happen but not macro evolution is a bit like saying a branch on a tree can grow but the tree can't grow.

Sorry about no links, I'll get some you soon. Oh, and would you quit with the "FRICKEN EVIDENCE" stuff? It gets annoying real fast.

No you want to tote something as fact you have to provide evidence.

Anyway if you really want to shoot down evolution and promote creationism here is some reading material for your consideration. Also a hand full of videos if you get tired of just reading.

29+ Cases for Macroevolution
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference
All About Archaeopteryx
Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
Arachaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record
Are Mutations Harmful?
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
Bombadier Beetles and the Argument of Design
The 'Burdick Print'
Creationism and the Platypus
Creationist Arguments: Java Man
Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Creationist Arguments: Peking Man
A Creationist Exposed: Gish
Creationist Whppoers
Creationists and Pithecanthropines
The Creation Research Society's Creed
Darwin's Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?
Digit Numbering and Limb Development
Dino Blood Redux
Dinosaur Footprints in Coal
Dinosaur Valley State Park
Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?
Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard
Entropy, Disorder and Life
Evidence for Evolution
The Evolution of Improved Fitness
The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue
Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution
Fossil Hominids: Lucy
Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation
Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy
How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax
IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications
Images of Neandertals
Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information
Jury-Rigged Design
Kansas Evolution Hearings
Lucy's Knee Joint
A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials
Observed Instances of Speciation
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery
On the Heels of Dinosaurs
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking
Peking Man and Homo erectus
Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics
Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution
A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'
Response to Casey Luskin
A Response to Wayne Jackson
Review: Bones of Contention
A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151
A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'
Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis
Review: The Image of God
Sauropods, Elephants,Weightlifters
Sea-Monster or Shark?
Scientific Creationism and Error
Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability
Suspicious Creationist Credentials
A Tale of Two Teeth
The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'
Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered
Ted Holden's World
The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy
Transitional Vertevrate Fossils FAQ
A Visit to the IRC Museum

Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism
Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)
Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)
Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)
How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)
How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)
How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA
How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations
How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection
How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution
How Evolution Works 7: Speciation
Evidence for Evolution, Part I
Evidence for Evolution, Part II
Evidence for Evolution, Part III
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
The Evolution of the Flagellum
Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II

Now please refute it, I'll wait.

[quote]Uniformitarianism beliefs state that the earth's geological and fossil records were the results of slow natural processes over vast amounts of time.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually it states the natural laws and processes accruing in the universe now were the same in the past. That of course doesn't mean the conditions with in those laws and processes couldn't change.\r\n\r\n[quote]They say that strata is created by the slow swell and receding of the oceans over time (1,000,000s of years or more). Now, several tree trunks have been found preserved, running vertically across several layers of strata. There is no way a tree could stand the test of 1,000,000's (or more) years of weather,[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes that's one method other can include volcanic activity.\r\nAlso your argument that trees can't last for a million years is out the window As we have trees at Fishlake National Forest that estimate between 80,000-1,000,000 years old.\r\n\r\nFor further information on polystrate trees.\r\n[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]2. The standpoint of evolution is based off of Darwin's writings, and ideas (as hopefully, just about everyone knows).[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually the hypothesis existed before Darwin, he simply provided the best evidence pushing it to become the leading theory. There has been 150 years since then of confirming his findings and discovering additional evidence.\r\n\r\n[quote]And Darwin realized and admitted that if no "missing links" were found, his theory was improbable at best. And now, years later, with the field of geology more advanced than ever, other than several hoaxes and a few cases of mistaken identity, no "links" have been found. It would seem that we would not only find fossilized fish and amphibians, but fossilized hybrids,[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt's already been pointed out to you how wrong you are here so I will just say... We have the fossils, WE WIN!\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/transisitional1.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\n[quote]But I can say this. Christians and Jews have been talking about a "Great Flood" for thousands of years. And now, the geological records point to a huge catastrophe (Cumberland Bonecaves, anyone?) that rapidly shaped much of our geological records.[/quote]\r\n\r\nPeople have been talking about how the sun is carried through the sky by a god for thousands of years, whats your point?\r\n\r\nOkay they found evidence for a catastrophic flood in a localized area. What you haven't found is evidence for a global catastrophic flood. Such an event would have left a very clear layer of stratum. (note singular, meaning just one, not plural)\r\n\r\nAlso the places that have flood stories are all in areas that are or were near or around bodies of water. Further indicating these are stories of LOCALIZED floods.\r\n\r\n[quote]In a way, yes. At some point, if a species slowly goes from not having a leg to having one, their would be something between... Unless one generation had no legs while the second suddenly did, and that doesn't sound like evolution to me.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe transitional phases would have served other functions, such as a fin.\r\n\r\n[quote]This is a great piece of evidence for micro evolution. But has little weight in an argument about macro evolution. I hope you know there's a difference. [/quote]\r\n\r\nJust wonder but do you realize the difference between the two?\r\n\r\nMicro evolution is the process of evolution below the level of species, macro evolution is the process at or above the level of  species. It's the same process just look at from different scales.\r\n\r\nSaying micro evolution can happen but not macro evolution is a bit like saying a branch on a tree can grow but the tree can't grow.\r\n\r\n[quote]Sorry about no links, I'll get some you soon. Oh, and would you quit with the "FRICKEN EVIDENCE" stuff? It gets annoying real fast.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo you want to tote something as fact you have to provide evidence.\r\n\r\nAnyway if you really want to shoot down evolution and promote creationism here is some reading material for your consideration. Also a hand full of videos if you get tired of just reading.\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]29+ Cases for Macroevolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html]An Account of a Debate with a Creationist[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/creation-conference.html]An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html]All About Archaeopteryx[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html]Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html]Arachaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html]Are Mutations Harmful?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html]Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html]Bombadier Beetles and the Argument of Design[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html]The 'Burdick Print'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html]Creationism and the Platypus[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html]Creationist Arguments: Java Man[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html]Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html]Creationist Arguments: Neandertals[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html]Creationist Arguments: Peking Man[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html]A Creationist Exposed: Gish[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html]Creationist Whppoers[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brace.html]Creationists and Pithecanthropines[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html]The Creation Research Society's Creed[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html]Darwin's Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html]Digit Numbering and Limb Development[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html]Dino Blood Redux[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html]Dinosaur Footprints in Coal[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/dvsp.html]Dinosaur Valley State Park[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/arizon.html]Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html]Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html]Entropy, Disorder and Life[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html]Evidence for Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/]The Evolution of Improved Fitness[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html]The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html]Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/]Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html]Fossil Hominids: Lucy[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html]Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/georef.html]Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html]How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html]Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html]IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html]Images of Neandertals[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html]Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html]Jury-Rigged Design[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html]Kansas Evolution Hearings[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html]Lucy's Knee Joint[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html]A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html]On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html]On the Heels of Dinosaurs[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/]The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/ovrdino.html]An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sinanth.html]Peking Man and Homo erectus[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/]Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html]Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html]A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html]Response to Casey Luskin[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html]A Response to Wayne Jackson[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html]Review: Bones of Contention[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html]A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/nbc.html]A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html]Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/imageofgod.html]Review: The Image of God[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html]Sauropods, Elephants,Weightlifters[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html]Sea-Monster or Shark?[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html]Scientific Creationism and Error[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mungonhm.html]Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html]The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html]Suspicious Creationist Credentials[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tooth.html]A Tale of Two Teeth[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html]The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html]Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/teds-world.html]Ted Holden's World[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html]The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]Transitional Vertevrate Fossils FAQ[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html]A Visit to the IRC Museum[/url]\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c]Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0]Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM]Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw]Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY]How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY]How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ17JKIBSS4]How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFvK77Fsz8]How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0tmb3Evhc]How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg]How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE]How Evolution Works 7: Speciation[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ]Evidence for Evolution, Part I[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY]Evidence for Evolution, Part II[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI]Evidence for Evolution, Part III[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0]Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w]The Evolution of the Flagellum[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE]Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg]How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4]How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II[/url]\r\n\r\nNow please refute it, I'll wait.

offline

BeastMode10

374 posts

Nomad

Posted August 7, '10 4:23am UTC

Holy crud, Mage, how long did it take you to post that?

But I can say this. Christians and Jews have been talking about a "Great Flood" for thousands of years. And now, the geological records point to a huge catastrophe (Cumberland Bonecaves, anyone?) that rapidly shaped much of our geological records.

There's not enough water to actually fill the earth in one flood, even if hundreds of water-bearing asteroids brought their load down to earth. Also, there's the fact that metal didn't exist back then, so a stable craft which could outlast the flood (aka Noah's Ark) couldn't be built. And there's a ton of other stuff which refutes the idea of a global flood.

Sorry about no links, I'll get some you soon. Oh, and would you quit with the "FRICKEN EVIDENCE" stuff? It gets annoying real fast.

In case you haven't noticed, science is structured around empiricism. Not to mention that most debates are substantiated with some form of evidence, otherwise its just a bunch of people ranting about their particular biased views.

Holy crud, Mage, how long did it take you to post that?\r\n\r\n[quote]But I can say this. Christians and Jews have been talking about a "Great Flood" for thousands of years. And now, the geological records point to a huge catastrophe (Cumberland Bonecaves, anyone?) that rapidly shaped much of our geological records.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere's not enough water to actually fill the earth in one flood, even if hundreds of water-bearing asteroids brought their load down to earth. Also, there's the fact that metal didn't exist back then, so a stable craft which could outlast the flood (aka Noah's Ark) couldn't be built. And there's a ton of other stuff which refutes the idea of a global flood.\r\n\r\n[quote]Sorry about no links, I'll get some you soon. Oh, and would you quit with the "FRICKEN EVIDENCE" stuff? It gets annoying real fast.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn case you haven't noticed, science is structured around empiricism.  Not to mention that most debates are substantiated with some form of evidence, otherwise its just a bunch of people ranting about their particular biased views.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted August 7, '10 9:39am UTC

Holy crud, Mage, how long did it take you to post that?

Not very long, I keep it on a note pad. I think it was a post originally made by FireflyIV, I have since somewhat added to it.

offline

Strop

10,816 posts

Bard

Posted August 7, '10 11:24am UTC

Oh snap guys, Mage came to this battle prepared. You better all be preparing some sources, otherwise it's about as good as taking a knuckle-duster to a Panzer tank!

offline

Avorne

3,085 posts

Nomad

Posted August 7, '10 11:49am UTC

Perhaps you creationists should check out Kent Hovinds website - it's the closest thing I could find to 'real creation science' which is to say it's a million miles away from any sort of proof of creation.

Kent Hovind's site

Interestingly he is serving a 10 year prison sentence at the minute.

Also - Example one of Kent Hovinds craziness

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted August 7, '10 6:44pm UTC

Perhaps you creationists should check out Kent Hovinds website - it's the closest thing I could find to 'real creation science' which is to say it's a million miles away from any sort of proof of creation.

I really wouldn't recommend sending a creationist who really believes this $&#^ to a creationist website, it's really not good for them. However for anyone who doesn't believe creationism I would most definitely recommend reading such sites, so you have an idea of what bs will get spewed your way next.

offline

Hydraulic

223 posts

Nomad

Posted August 7, '10 8:57pm UTC

If you all want proof for Christianity, try one word: faith. No, there, is no proof he's there. What proof do you have that he's not?

Anyway, that's what makes God and Christianity so beautiful: the choice of free will. God doesn't make you follow him. That is part of the test, to take the leap of literal faith that it takes to follow Him. If you choose not to follow your Saviour, he still does not turn his back on you. I know, I know, saying that faith is proof is somewhat oxymoronical, but it is the answer.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted August 7, '10 9:01pm UTC

What proof do you have that he's not?

None, and we don't need any. Atheists are not the one making the claim, therefore the onus of proof is on those making the assertation. Also, claims without evidence can be, and are, dismissed without evidence. Basically that means that if you are saying something is true but you don't have proof, then your claim is worthless and will be dismissed.

offline

Hydraulic

223 posts

Nomad

Posted August 7, '10 9:10pm UTC

I can't give you evidence. It requires faith, which I already told you about. Either way, I really don't care about your faith, or, in this case, lack thereof. There is no point in trying to convince those who have already been lost. Also, this entire thread is pretty much pointless, as I see a huge lack of Christians. Without one side, an argument is but a group of people flaming a religion.

offline

Avorne

3,085 posts

Nomad

Posted August 7, '10 9:14pm UTC

You say that Faith is the beauty of Christianity and it is - just not for the reasons you think. The very nature of religion compels certain people to believe simply because 'you never know if it's real or not' - it's a rather brilliant way of gaining followers and one I really must employ should I create my own cult one day. The burden of proof is upon the person or group asserting something - in this case the assertion is that God or Gods exist.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism